LEGAL terms aren't just a matter of terminology.
Consider two contentious ones, made famous by the gig economy: employees vs independent contractors. It is a replay of an old battle between labour and capital.
If "employees" triumph against "independent contractors" in this existential battle waged by gig commerce, it will mean greater benefits for gig workers and less profits for the companies.
And, as often happens, the customers end up picking up the tab. This isn't a bad idea if it benefits all. California,the midwife of Silicon Valley start-ups, has sprung a surprise on its newly-hatched darlings.
On Jan 1, the state passed the Assembly Bill 5, which is really a restatement of a 2018 Supreme Court ruling that puts gig commerce to a three-part test.
One, does the company control how the workers do their job? Two, is their work a part of the normal business of the company? Three, are the workers free to work for others?
It was Monday blues on Aug 10 for gig companies Uber Technologies Inc and Lyft Inc as the San Francisco Superior Court ruled their drivers to be employees.
Malaysia is no California, but Grab Malaysia, MyCarMalaysia, Foodpanda Malaysia and other gig players with such employee-independent contractor tension may want to give the idea a big think. So must our policymakers and parliamentarians.
Ideas such as this come loaded with costs and benefits. First, the benefits. Take three: healthcare insurance, paid sick leave and reimbursement for expenses incurred. Now our gig workers have none. Our food delivery riders and ride-hailing drivers face frequent dangers on the road. Our data tell it all.
If the rider or driver loses a limb in an accident — which is not infrequent — he has no recourse.
If he loses his life, a household will be left to fend for themselves. The social cost to society and to the government will be huge. And premiums aren't cheap to buy health insurance with a wage of RM2,000. Our gig commerce companies have two tiresome arguments.
One is that their drivers are not the core of their business. Perhaps it will be so when cars drive themselves. Not now. And that, too, is a distant date, given the on-again, off-again trials.
Two is that their workers have the flexibility to choose when to work. True, but must flexibility rule out benefits?
The issue ultimately is this: who pays for the cost that comes with treating the drivers and riders as employees? The companies will want the customers to do so. We can't quarrel with this commercial reality. Almost everything comes at a price. Even benefits.
Malaysians wouldn't disagree that our drivers and riders need protection, and that such protection comes at a cost to them. So long as they get a slice of their service when they want it, they will be willing to share the cost with other users.
But there is a caveat here. Gig commerce is not unlike brick-and-mortar business. A product or a service must be priced right. A little heavy on the wrong side of the price scale and customers will have no qualms in taking their custom elsewhere. This is also true for gig workers.
Exploitation will only work up to a point. When it passes into pain territory, the workers will take their talent elsewhere.
Call it the cost of doing business. A good businessman will know this.